California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Criminal Law and Procedure
 

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE
Criminal Law Case Summaries

■ V.C. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, No. C059050

After the minor’s alleged unsatisfactory performance of the conditions of his probation arising from his plea bargain on a 2007 sustained petition, the juvenile court, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code[1] section 782, dismissed the minor’s 2007 sustained petition in order to make him eligible for commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF) under the revised terms of section 733, subdivision (c) (section 733(c)).  Section 733(c) limits the commitment of a minor to DJF to cases where the minor has been, or is adjudged to be, a ward of the juvenile court pursuant to section 602 and the minor’s “most recent offense alleged in any petition and admitted or found to be true by the court” is an offense listed in section 707, subdivision (b), or a sex offense listed in Penal Code section 290.008, subdivision (c).[2] 

     Here, the juvenile court dismissed V. C.’s most recently sustained petition, a 2007 Penal Code section 314 offense, which does not qualify for a DJF commitment, to cause an earlier sustained petition, a 2005 Penal Code section 288a, subdivision (b)(1) offense, which does qualify for a DJF commitment, to be the most recent offense for purposes of section 733(c).  Based on the facts of this case, we conclude the court abused its discretion under section 782 when it dismissed the 2007 petition.  Thus, we need not reach the other issues raised by the parties. 

     We shall issue a writ of mandate requiring the respondent juvenile court to:  (1) vacate its order of May 7, 2008, dismissing the petition filed on November 8, 2007; (2) dismiss the May 9, 2008, notice of violation of probation; and (3) reinstate the February 29, 2008, notice of violation of probation. 

■ HELD:

Juvenile Court order dismissing the minor-plaintiff's 2007 sustained petition in order to make him eligible for commitment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is vacated where the court abused its discretion under Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 782 in dismissing the 2007 petition as the dismissal was not in the interests of justice or for the welfare of the minor in light of his constitutional due process right to the benefit of his plea bargain.

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory